The Sun. — London, England, 1818-05-14 00:00:00

gwirOlims, were null and void. The wording of ti,c Act was so broad and lingual:tied, that the ' nhtt , imoinial Corn' felt it an imperative duty up on tin 11) r , l prooutice such marriages contracted lip parics under age void, although the man had livid veals with his wife and had children. To get rid of his ,!te, he migh► avur his own injury; a ;n0,,1 14 ' 6IIS 5,11 01)!2,ht to be remedied. • The pcnieriy he wis',ed to mopose was this—that it no proceedings ‘vere instituted to invalidate the tnar,iiage during the minority, not within one vi at after the attainment of majority, the mar riage shw,ld he held good. He also intended to sHunit a farthei measuie, to remove some incon veniences respectio , z marriage by haus, which are Rhea out in the ch..ireh of the- parish- to which the patty b,longs. After publication by bans, ii _was not nec-ssAiy to give proofs of residence in the parish. But such was t: ?, operation of the Act, that marriages were contracted daily without the required residence. He wished the Mar rimo nial Courts to he made competent to inquire pro perly into the fact of a minor's residence at the period of marriage, with the view also, in the case of cohabitation for ,a year alter coming of age, that !he marriage should stand good. Ile moved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Marriage Act, and to alter anti regulate certain provisions t hereof.—Leave was given, and a Com .thittee named to prepare the Bill. WELCH COURTS• Mr. JONE.s moved for leave to bring in a Bill to alter and amend the practice of the, several Courts .of Great Seisions in W , des, and to regulate the Liws relating to the same.—Mr.IVYNNE reu►arls ed, that it was a very Ilteperiod of time Session to introduce such a Hie motion was agreed to. BRE.-1(41T OF PRIVILEGE. Mr. W. WYNNE, in pursuance of his notice, rose to move for the removal of Thomas Ferguson ft()m his office of Collector of Taxes for the coun ty or Lanark. It had already appeared to the D.,,ise that this man bad, without any authority, taken upon himself to endeavour to influence a person in the vote which he shouhl give for a MeMber of Parliament, by the promise of an of fice. This was an offence which, consistent with the 'dignity and independence of the House of COmmoits, and the liberty of the people, the House could not pass over unnoticed. The Hon. Member proceeded to state several precedents, t articularly that of a Bishop of Winchester, a Mayor of Worcester, a Sheriff of Suffolk, and other persons holding offices, who having inter fered in the election of Members of Parliament, the House had come to a vote that tho%e persons, in consequence of such interference, were become unfit to hold any of the public offices of trust which they held. So also several Acts of Parlia ment had h en passed, particulatly- the 10th of Anne, by which persons holding offices in the Excise, the Customs, the Post-office, and other public offices, were declared incapable of inter feriug in any Election for Members of Parliament; and had the NVindow-tax, of which Mr. Ferguson was a Collector, then existed, he had Ito doubt that would also have been included in the prohi bitory clauses of the Act. After some further observatio,s, the Hon. Member moved an humble Addre , s to the Prince Regent, praying that he would he graciously pleased to direct that T.Fer gnson, who had been guilty of a gross breach of tbe privileges of the House of Commons, should be removed from the situation of Collector of Taxes for the county of Lanark. Sir F. Boar) ETT, previous to the motion being put,- %visited that the Petition of the Friends of the People,•presented to the [louse by the present Earl Grey, then Mr. Grey, in 1793, should be read. • The petition was accordingly read, and evil taincd a review of the then state of the represen tation of the people, and the influence by which the majority of the House were elected, &c. Sir F. BuRDETT then moved that the Resolu tion of the Committee appointed in 1793, to en quire into the merits of time Great Grimsby Elec tion, should be read. This was accordingly done, when it appeared that one of the Resolutions was, that it appeared to the Committee that the Right Hon. Wm. Wellesley Pole 104 d been guilty uf bribery in the election of a Member of the House. Sir F. BURDETT said, he had nothing-to add ; he had moved the reading of these Resolutions and Petition to chew the House the injustice of its present pinceedings. Mr. S. BonaNg wished to make some few ob servations on the case now before the House. The real state of which was as follows :—Mr. Ferguson had been brought before a Cote• Injure of the House, by whom lie was questioned at great length, and his answers were drawn from him by the Committee upon that' examination, occupying 15 folio pages ; the House afterwards pi (weeded to punish him to the tgmost of its power ; having called him to its Bar, committed him to the custody of the Serjeant at Arms, (no slight punishment), and afterwards to the most ignominious prison : and having thus proceeded to the utmost of their power, it was now pro posed to address the Prince - Regent to remove him from some situation which he• held, and from which he derived his support. He did not mean to palliate this man's .offence, but he must be allowed to say, that if the House intended to go to this extent of punishment, they ought to have gone. to other quarters for evidence, and, not have drawn Conviction from his own lips. Mr. BATHURST could not view this question in the same light as his Hon. Friend did ; it was not on evidence of Mr. Ferguson himself that the Committee acted, but on the letter. Mr. D. BROWN thought a high offence bad been con►mitted against the House, the Members of which, ‘vbatever might be the vulgar prejudice without doors, it was well known never inter fered in elections. Mr. JONES was against the motion. He thought the person alluded to bad been sufficiently punish ed already. He bad been punished on his own evidence, which if he bad withheld, and refused to answer questions, would have caused him to hive been committed to Newgate for contumacy and now the, House were proceeding to address the Prince Regent to deprive him of all the means of support which he had left. He was decidedly_ hostile to this mode of proceeding, by which a man was . deprived of ,that right which will his b►rth-right—a Trial by Jury. Mr. 111 . gnitJEN was against this motion, rot because he held the offence of Mr Ferguson light, but because he considered that person had already been sufficiently punished. Mr. 1...\-r FLE-ros: also opposed the motion, not because he vv as a favourer of bribery and corrup tion, bin because he considered the House had already inflicted sufficient punishment : and fur ther, that this proceeding would not render the House of Commons more remmetable or more pure; He wsshed to see this mode of punishment, i n which so much severitywa3 frequently com bined,.better defined. Lord Fot(RsToN F. was in favour of the motion. If this metion was not carried, every one holding' a situation in the revenue would consider he had a tight to use his interest and, ioflaenee in- pro moting election interests. It had been urged that gyeat delinquents hash been allowed to go without punishment he thought ttose delinquents oeght . to have been punished ; but it was not now the question whether great delinquents had been punished, but 'Whether little ones should be al lowed.to offend With impunity. It had been said that if you bleprived this man of his situation, you would, deprive him of subsistence ; but it was not so, for he understood that Mr Ferguson was either a writer himself, or a clerk to a writer, at Glasgow. Lord BINNING opposed the motion. Mr. Fer guson had already been punished with severity beyond precedent. His Hon. Friend (Mr. Wynne, had cited precedents and cases, but they were none of them cases in point. The first be had cited was that of the Bishop of Worcester, who, having interfered in an election, was deprived of his office of High Almoner, with a salary of 1001. but he was not like Mr. Ferguson, a poor collec tor-of taxes with 1201. a-year. He was a Peer of Parliament. The next case was that of the Mayor of XVinehester—who was he—why Returning Officer : did his situation resemble Mr. Fergu son's? yet he was not sent. to Newgate 'De next case alluded to by his Hon. Friend was that of Mr. Burslam, Receiver-General of Stafford. Did the Receiver-General, giving large sums of money, resemble Mr. Ferguson ? yet the House did not commit Mr. Burslain. [his Hon. Friend next men tioned Mr. Beetham, but Mr.Beetliam was collector of Duties in the port of Hull, and to influence an election he gave a bond to an elector for an annuity to be paid out •of his own salat y if he would vote in a certain manner ; yet the Hoti-e did not commit Mr. Beet ham. The only case in which they had sent an individual to prison. men tioned by his Hon. Friend, was that of Mr. Mid dleton ; but who was Mr. Middleton ? High Sheriff of Denbigh, who. it appeared had made a false return, for the purpose of procuring the election of a particular iodividoal. With respect to Mr. Ferguson, he was informed, that such were his circumstances, that to deptive him of his office of. Collector would be to - ruin him. The Noble Lord concluded by moving the previous question. Mr. BROUGHAM thought the House had already gone far enough. Mr. CANNING said, that, on the best considera tion which he could give this question, he was of opinion that the measure of punishment against Mr. Ferguson was already equal to his offence. The Noble Lord opposite (Lord Folkestone)• had indeed endeavoured to make out a case, which, if true, would have gone tar to induce the House to agree to the Address. It was not, however, at all proved that Mr. Ferguson had used the inflo ence of his office to obtain the vote of any elector. Mr. WYNNE replied, and contended at some length, that it was the invariable practice of the House to punish such offences by the removal of the offender front any office which be held under Government. The House then divided-- For the previous Question Fur the Addre,s Majority 49 ROYAL MESSAGE. Lord CASTLERPAGH appeared at the Bar of the House with a Message from his Royal Highness the Prince Regent tesuecting the Marriage of his Royal Highness the Duke of Kent, for which see the Lords. When the Message had been read from the Chair, an Address of Thanks was, on Lord Castlertagit's motion, ordered to be presented to the Prince Regent for his most gracious communication, and to assure him that the House would immediately proceed to the consideration of his Royal High ness's Message. Lord CASTLEREAGH then moved that the said Message be referred too-a Committee of the whole House to-morrow.—Agreed to. Accounts of the Expences incurred by the Bank in prose cutions for forgeries, and of the nominal amount of forged flank notes, were presented, and laid on the table. COMMISSARY COURTS. Lord A. HAMILTON was understood to explain, that the object of the motion of which hu had given notice for to morrow was to procure copies of the Corresimmlence which had taken place between the Commissioners for inquiring into the Fees of Courts of Justice and the Home Department, re lating to Commissary Courts in Scotland. !RBI! GRAND JURIES. Mr. V. FITZGERALD brought in the Irish Grand Jury Presentment Bill. Sir F. FLOOD expressed his high approbation of the mea sure. The Bill was then read a first time, and ordered for a se cond reading. to-morrow, and to be printed. Mr. V. FITZGERALD obtained leave to bring in a Bill to .amend and consolidate the Laws relating to County Trea surers in Ireland.—Agreed to. Mr. CHICHESTER presented a' petition from the Inha bitants of Belfast against the Window Tax.—Laid osi the table. A petition was presented from Portsea against the Bill for regulating Settlements.—Laid on the table, after a few words from Lord Folkestone, Mr. Sturges Bourne, and Lord Castle reagh.. Mr. S. BOURNE then postponed the futtlier consideration 4f the Settlement Regulation Bill to next Monday. COUNT LAS CASAS. Mr. J. P. GRANT wished to know whether the Noble Lord opposite would have any objection to produce a Copy of the Correspondence and Olders that bad passed through the Home. Department, relative to the transportation of Count Las Cases ? Lord CASTLEREAGH wished the Hon. Gentleman would reduce his question into a notice; to which Mr.J. P. Grant assented. IRISH ASSESSED TAXES. The House went into a Committee on the Irish Assessed Taxes Bill. The CHANCRLLOR of the EXCHRQURR adverted to an opinion which had gone forth, that the tax on Windows in Ireland, after the war, was to be repealed ; but he thought that nothing which had passed when it was originally kid on for a year conid have, induced such a belief. Tie observed, that many of the taxes which were generally voted fur the war became in fact, from existing and unavoidable circumstances, permanent ones. He was, however, disposed to give some relief to the existing bluebells ,of the people 'of that country. The revenue at present fell short of the existing debt about one million and a half; the latter being six millions and a half, and tht taxes only pro div•ed about five millions. The proposition which he had now to submit, .in respect to the existing scale of.taxes, was this :-Ist, As to the Hearth tax, he did not intend any material alteration ; it was his intention, however, to propose a very considerable reduction in the Tax on Windows, to the amount of 25 per cent. The stagnation in trade had affected, to a certain extent, every part of the Empire ;. and consequently where any too dificatirm could be made, it was reasonable to afford it, in justice to the pressure on the people. In lodging-houses, occupied by the poor, only Is. a window would be charged, whatever the num ' her of windows. The Right Hon. Gentleman here stated some other modifications on the Aa sessed Taxes generally, as affecting the Minor and more expensive establishments, in which he should propose some material relief, with a view to in duce absentees to reside there. A great reduction would he made its the highest scale in respect of servants, horses, carriages, &c. The duty on jaunting ears, which was heretofore St. 10s. would now he reduced to 21. 2s. He then moved a Re solution for repealing the present duties, &c. Sit H. PARNELL called the attention of the Right Hon. Gentleman to the manner of collect ing the Hearth 'Fax, which he o!tiected to:, and thought the best mode of getting rid of the griev ance would be to move for its repeal. He alluded to an Address in the reign of King William on this subject, and the Niessage of that Monarch to Parliament, in consequence of which a Rcsoln tion-pased declaring the Hearth Tax a grievance. The Hon, Baronet moved to abolish this 'Fax The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER defended the letyine, of cite Tax, as being strictly correct, and not grievous.. But . if the Hon. Baronet Was inclined to accept of the House Tax as in Eng land, instead of a Tax on Hearths, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had no objection to repeal the latter. This was the case in the time of King William, when a commutation took place. Sir H. PARNELL objected to the 'Fax in a con stitutional point of view, Mr. FOSTER observed, that since the Union a great diminution of the Tax on Hearths had taken place. In respect to the agricultural population, houses not having four hearths. paid no duty.— The House therefore would see the advantages which Ireland derived. The agricolthral part of that country had 16.0 3 101. a year conceded to them by tl►e non-levy of the Tax, «Itich before 1795 Was strktly enforced. -Houses having one hearth then only paid duty. Mr. D. RitawN had never heard any com plaint of the mode of collecting this tax, and supported the tax, as preferable to any other.. He was so much of a COnstitutionallst that he would not consent to take Off two shillings in order to levy four. Tbis must be the case if this tax was repealed. _ _ Sir F. FLOOD complained. of the grievance whi c h the tax inflieTed on the people. Ile thought when Gentlemen returned to iheir Constituents they would feel a little auk ward, in having given a great vote in favour of oppression. By voting this tax it made . Ireland slaves. The CHANCELLOR 01 the EXCHEQUER "Hid 110 ttish to enslave the people of Ireland, by perie vering in the Hearth-Tax ; and if the Gentle men "of Ireland would CPHsent to the substitution of the House-Tax, he had no objection to relin quish it. Sir H. PARNELL stia maintained ; that in a con atitutional punit of •vieiv.treland Was . entitled to expect !chef from the tax. Mr. V. FITZGERALD 4,lenied.-that the tax was odious, imr could:he believe that, constitutionally speaking, it was properitii repeal it. He sup ported the proposition for its continuance. Sir J. NEwpotur protested against the doctrine that those who objected to a tax should consent to provide or agree to any other. With respect to the tax, perhaps it was, in its modified form, less objectionable than others. Mr. PaaNI.ILL supported the Motion for repeal ing the tax, on the old constitution grounds-; and thought it rather hard to say—" We Will.Prypose the Hotite-tax as a substitute. Mr. PEEL supported the taic: After some conversation, the,amena ment of Sir Parnell' was withdrawn. • The Resolution respecting the Window-duties was then read. Sir J. NEWPORT contended - that it was necessary to go lower in the scale of reduction for the in terest of Irdiind, and therefore he shoold to limit the rate to 50 per cent. ins,tead of 25 per, cent. He observed, that withinth4last the number of windows stopited np amonoted . to 78,800, neatly one-tenth of the number' thrOugh out the country. This afforded a strong proof of the policy of lowering the scale, to say nothing of the benefit of admitting the wretched people to receive light and air. He maintiNitied that the pressure on the people -was so great that Ireland was incapable of bearing the bdrthens imposed nay, indeed, Great Britain felt it in her exports, which had greatly decreased. , He moved accord ingly to lower the rates 25 per cent._ on the smaller houses than the scale proposed by tile Chancellor of the Exchequer. Sir F. FLOOD contended that the pressure was so • great that the tax had fallen considerably short of the expected receipts. He supported the amendment, being satisfied of the incapability of the people to bear the burthens. Mr. PEEL referred to what had passed in a former debate respecting the preamble of the Act of 1800, which provided further ditties for one year only. It had then been contended that the faith of Parliament was pledged for that period ; but it had been forgotten to stare that the grants were made for one year. only.. 'He tained, therefore, that the faith of Parliament was not violated. But he would ask the Hon. Bart: why he did not, in the year 1806, if he thought the faith of Parliament was pledged, preserve that faith by repealing the tax instead of bringing in' an Act to render it permanent. With resil 'ecl i t ; the call for r peal, that was no ctiteri on ' of policy of the measure. The Committee mot " n d into consideration the state of the finances, e nd the means of providing for the exig en cies of t(` State. The whole amount of the proposed reli ef l e' taxes would be somewhere about 15 2,000/: making a deficiency in the revenue of 5 51 4 00 which England must provide fur. The charge 11, England for the debt of Ireland was 4,4760 01 • addition to this, the deficiencyjust alluded to w" to , make the amount nearly 5,000,0001. The i nterest the debt at the Union paid in Ireland was 1,60 0,00 _ at present it is only 1,680,0001. In thitSt3titd the incapability of Ireland to meet the charg es e ai its establishment, the Committee would do ' v et to consider how far it would be policy Et ) the rate of duties below the scale proposed bY Right Hon. Friend. Houses with less than seevo windows were exempt from the operation o'ectLi„ tax ; and lodging-houses, formerly paying s o e by the new scale would only be liable 10 thus a commutation to the atnount of 1.0“ would be granted to the owners of those i i° ", s , to - 6 . Sir J. NEWPORT defended his conduct in TI and denied that he now wished to court poP ulari " . Mr. Btrresa supported the amendment. ed• Mr. V. FLTZGERALD went over the g roun tm which he proceeded the years 1814 and lb o e d in encreasing this particular tax, which was gilled for on the ground of expediency. He tools a O .- view of the state of the Irish finances, arid d ° ,•, ( l , tabled that had not the commutation been into effect, the debt which Ireland would ve LII to provide for must have Len 6,000,0 00 L supported the proposition of his Right El° ll , l ot . able Friend in respect to the diminished s es " . 25 per cent. ot g . Mr. SHAW (of Dublin) referred to the se e pal Mr. Corry, on the 25th of June, 1800, wllo‘ilos expressly stated that the tax was laid on O a ' 1. Tax only. He contended that the pi-01) 04(.1 ,o duction would not have the benefit which contemplated by the ktight Hon. Gel-0141st', 'Hue Hon. Gentleman read several rettiro34.o• shew that tlits tax was decreasing itt pro o " c „ ri a' tress., and therefore he considered-it idle t° For these reasons he though t grievous tax ought to be taken off. Mr L. F'STER defended thecontinoanceJ l- t ha tax, on the ground that the Ctomeellor Exchequer, consistently with his geoet<44 could not have found ally other r:,x to ~,,41-6t' for this ; and therefore it would be onwisc peal this tax at present. Sir F. BU RDETT said, that the Hon. ( i r " titan's argument was incorrect, until ditir ;Id down all unmerited places and pensions. " ' d by shewn that every just economy was kolor „al3 - Government. It this tax were 3 1 ).1:shed. be received as a great boon by the people ° ale land; it might ena.ble 6overoment to red". military establishment in Ireland, and 10114 more to the Exchequer yhan this tax piod" ce " . The Earl of CA RH A NIPToN opposed the ' 3% ort o Lord CASTLEREAGH considered this i"" as ,itt of the mildest measures which Ireland had " to expect, considering the present fivancol ,p culties of the country. It would not be take off this tax from Ireland, because it t " be throwing an additional burden upon 11 05 try at a time when almost all the sources (); taxation were closed, or at least almost exl.ol4o.i:j ed. Besides, he did not think it wise in 11 ; e : to press the eenerosity of this country 1 ;1 - 1 0' most pitch. Ile was sorry that the iris!! lit bers had not accepted,the boon offered to ibef:tie the reduction of the tiVindow-tax in '0 "lire' calculated to quiet the minds of the peop le 0. Sir G. HILL approved of the course W e Ministers, - and wished to take his fall sel f,,! unpopuliirity for voting . with the Chan the Exchequer, 140 014 Altera few words from Mr. BUTLER, t h e divided, when there appeared— so time it. For the Motion 56 • • Fur the Amendment ...................... Majority in favour of the proposition ;..-.---. -•••• of l le. • 5 Chancellor of the Exchequer ......... • • • When strangers were re-admitted, Sir J. NEWP owl. was objecting to the Pr-t'cl,er acted upon by the Chancellor of the Ex e , I !„ e i ;10 1 with respect to the duties on servants. IP" went to give the rich great relief—to fi ws , (LP I were in tolerable circumstances little , I ' „ e ; those who were poor none at all. The CHANCELLOR of the Excireaus 3 explained the reasons which had inflool ee "„foh in forming the schedule to which the obse r ' of theilonourable Baronet applied. W vi A conversation - followed, in which Sir' ' port, My: Huskisson, Mr. J. P. Grant, il'f,itig If' Fitzgerald, Sir M. W. Ridley, and Mr l34 ; (1 0 ton.participated, in the course of which "700' ties on carriages were discussed, and the relie thg posed to be granted. The Chancellor 006 Exchequer finally moved that the dntY g old' male servant should be reduced to V v° , so l o ' :leas, which was agreed to, as were the fa) n tt titans fixing the duty on a single carriage at 1 ;1 .0° two carriages at 221., on the three - 33L 1 , 1- r the r at 441., on every additional carriage th e sum of 121.; on every two-wheeled carriag'e t o , c oo by one horse, 51. 55., and on every jatioli ti l' the sum of 21. 2s. • it ,The House resumed, and the ReV r r t ° r o% o Committee was ordered to be received fo'rir,g-ig Sir J. NEWPORT obtained leave to Bill for preventing the extension.of e ' t7 T - n - §t 4 fever in Ireland,' by making further provi sl( : l wit h the reception and cure of patients athl ete that disease. SLAVE TRADE.iof ° •• Mr. ROBINSON moved that the He use s houl d t ft:er t a Go e Committee on the Slave Trade Abolition Acts , u ‘rr , short conversation, in which Mr. Wiberforee• burn, Mr. Barham, and Mr. W. Smith 7 took pa rt ' uiittee was postponed till that. day two months. EDUCATION. On the motion of Mr. BROUGHAM, the o°gsc re 0 4 itself into a Committee on the Education of the ie°,l7nce9 4,0001. I,y was agreed on as a sum for defraying the `',.1, 1) S PP, thepuiatof c CommissionersCharitable r Funds itt-esti f g o a r t investigating the purp a o b s t e t abuse of e tic f ion d tic ‘ ' Report to-morrow. The other orders of the day were tb e n d's osed ° f , an 3 • House adjourned at a quarter to One. 17) „ T . 29, Viii LONDON Printed by.). B. CARSTAIRS, of y. Orniond-street, Queen- s quare; and publish ed SCRIPPS, of No. 7, South Molton-street , . at 17 - - Office, No. 112, Strand 3 ., where Advertisernents!:. Letters, &e. (post-paid)'must be addressed , • 4 N t r -- th e qt . ,;" N t ; Who A, L ttsl,